In conclusion, this study sheds light on the usage of and learning from external knowledge in B2B start-ups. Precisely the purpose of this thesis is to
understand how B2B start-ups recognize the value from external knowledge and acquire external knowledge. Entrepreneurs consistently stated in different parts of the questionnaire that market and customer insights are central sources that they use and learn from. Additionally, the knowledge is typically accessed via personal network, creating an informal knowledge exchange that typically addresses tacit knowledge about current problems. While doing so the cognition and cognitive mindset of entrepreneurs play a crucial role (see section 4.2), and they form a recurring pattern in different parts of this research. The capability to learn from external knowledge starts with the entrepreneurs’ network minus their (cognitive) filters (see section 4.3) and provides a foundation to be responsive to the needs in the market. Besides, learning by doing plays a key role in the early absorptive capacity of entrepreneurs. The high importance of network, learning by doing, as well as cognition can be ascribed to the characteristics of start-ups (see section 3.2). For example, consider the limited prior knowledge, but also to the analysis that takes place on a more individual level, due to the size of start-ups. In addition, selective participation at events (see section 4.7) has repeatedly been stated as an effective routine to get market and customer feedback, and at the same time extend one’s network and thereby foster one’s own capability to learn. To conclude, external knowledge has been described as a way to overcome uncertainty. These aspects show the potential and value external knowledge can provide to start-ups if used properly. The analysis at hand has been based on specific types of companies and stages, which is a limitation of this study. The start-ups are characterized by newness, smallness, growth-ambition, innovation and founder dependence and have only been selected if addressing a B2B business in the information technology industry with a location in Berlin. These characteristics show that generalization for start-ups is not possible, and an increased heterogeneity in the sample of future analysis is required. For example, heterogeneity in terms of cultural context (Stienstra, Harms, Ham, & Groen, 2012) or business model types, including for example B2C start-ups (see section 3.2). As such, a more heterogeneous perspective is also required in terms of the interviewees with their different roles, experiences and networks in different industries.
In addition to the narrowed sample, the research design is also a matter of critique and limits the applicability of the findings. With regard to such a dynamic concept (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Zahra & George, 2002) as learning and absorptive capacity represent, several authors argue for longitudinal research methods (Barnett & Burgelman, 1996; Volberda et al., 2010) that allow an investigation of changes over time. Due to the conditions and temporal limitations of this research, the interviewees have been asked to talk about their past up-to today to cover a period of time. Unfortunately this approach does not allow a proper comparison over time, especially in terms of the cognitive mindset of the interviewees. Future research is required to investigate how such knowledge accumulates while the companies are interacting with external knowledge.
Future research should first of all make an effort to identifying a dominant design for absorptive capacity (see also appendix A) in the context of different conceptual models of absorptive capacity (Todorova & Durisin, 2007; Zahra & George, 2002). In such an analysis the insights from this thesis with regard to the newly identified dimension access/connection (see section 2.4 and 4.3), as well as the unclear role of recognize the value in B2B start-ups, need to be addressed. Also, of great value would be if such a concept of absorptive capacity is compatible with or in a relation with the concept of organisational learning.
Moreover, in future analysis of absorptive capacity in B2B start-ups, different perspectives of interviewees should be analysed more in-depth. In this analysis slightly different perspectives have been perceived with regard to the interviewee role (CEO, CTO, and CMO) and with regard to the interviewees’ entrepreneurial experience (first time founders, serial founders). Such a study should focus on identifying differentiating patterns.
Lastly, future research might analyse what early absorptive capacity components look like in different forms of companies and stages. Analyzing these different forms and stages would contribute to the identification of differentiating factors in how companies learn from external knowledge. Therefore, one should especially contrast established companies with
innovation activities, start-ups with entrepreneurial activities, as well as hybrid forms like spin-offs and internal innovation projects and investigate them over time.
In terms of practical relevance, entrepreneurs of B2B start-ups that reflect their own business based on the findings and central themes of this thesis (see for example chapter 5 figure 11) might benefit with their business from a better valuing of their external knowledge sources. This reflection allows them a greater cognitive awareness (see sections 4.2 and 4.3) for the way they interact and build relationships with certain external knowledge sources. The high degree to which entrepreneurs stated that they can use external knowledge for typical challenges B2B entrepreneurs are facing (see section 2.2) illustrates the potential value for B2B entrepreneurs. This external knowledge has been described as especially valuable in terms of getting validation from customers and the market (see section 4.5). Besides, the interviewees described external knowledge sometimes as a disadvantage, more precisely when it is too much external knowledge (see section 4.1) that is overloading the start-up. In such cases the interviewees recommended to learn iteratively from external knowledge.
For corporate innovators in established companies the insights about early absorptive capacity in B2B start-ups can be used to think about new ways of learning from external knowledge in their own innovation projects or spin-offs (see section 2.5 and 2.6). In addition, for established companies, the knowledge can offer considerable value for the way in which they collaborate with B2B start-ups. For example, in supplier- or customer relationships or in the role of a corporate venture capitalist (Dushnitsky & Lenox, 2005) that is funding a start- up. One example could a developed awareness for the point, that start-ups frequently use learning-by-doing, and this is a reason why they sometimes fail. Allowing such failing might be in conflict with the culture and expectations at an established company (Lorenz, 2014).
With regard to capital providers in the start-up ecosystem like venture capitalists, this study offers these investors a framework to investigate the learning capabilities of their current and future start-up investments. Keeping in
mind that start-ups require a high adaptability to market needs, such a learning capability might be a great way to distinguish successful start-ups from start-ups that fail. As the performance of a venture capitalist is measured by the financial return of his investments and a high failure rate is typical for the start-up domain, the investigation of the learning capability provides great economic potential for start-ups in the early phase. For start-ups in a later stage, creating performance data might provide indicators on their adaptability via their success in the market. But at this point in time, other investors might be already fully engaged with these successful start-ups. In addition, many venture capitalists share knowledge with their portfolio companies and act as an experienced source (see section 4.7). Sharing this framework with their portfolio companies can contribute to a higher cognitive awareness for the way their entrepreneurs interact with external knowledge.
In conclusion, the interviewed entrepreneurs frequently stated the importance of external knowledge in addressing entrepreneurial challenges, especially with regard to important knowledge about the market. With the findings and the identified central themes, actors in the start-up ecosystem have a framework to reflect on how they learn from external knowledge and how they can improve their recognition and acquisition of external knowledge.
References
Abernathy, W., & Clark, K. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.
Aldrich, H. E., & Auster, E. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 8, 165–198.
Almeida, P., Dokko, G., & Rosenkopf, L. (2003). Startup size and the
mechanisms of external learning: increasing opportunity and decreasing ability? Research Policy, 32(2), 301–315.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1- 2), 11–26.
Andreesen, M. (2007). Product/Market Fit. EE204: Business Management for
Electrical Engineers and Computer Scientists. Retrieved April 14, 2014,
from http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee204/ProductMarketFit.html Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial
opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing,
18(1), 105–123.
Argote, L. (2013). Organizational learning: A theoretical framework (2nd ed., p. 217). New York: Springer.
Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137.
Atteslander, P. (2003). Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (p. 411). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag GmbH & Co.
Audretsch, D., & Fritsch, M. (2003). Linking entrepreneurship to growth: The case of West Germany. Industry and Innovation, 10(1), 65–73.
Augustin, P. (2013). Vorwürfe unredlicher wissenschaftlicher Praxis gegen Professor Dr. Ulrich Lichtenthaler: Senat der WHU beschließt Aberkennung der Lehrbefähigung. WHU. Retrieved June 13, 2014, from
http://www.whu.edu/uploads/media/PM_Aberkennung_Lehrbefaehigung.pd f
Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process.
Research Policy, 32(2), 255–276.
Barnett, W. P., & Burgelman, R. A. (1996). Evolutionary perspectives on strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 5–19.
Baron, R. A. (2006). Opportunity Recognition as Pattern Recognition: How Entrepreneurs “Connect the Dots” to Identify New Business Opportunities.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 104–119.
Berlin Partner, G. (2014). Industrie- und Dienstleistungsstandort. berlin.de. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from
http://www.berlin.de/wirtschaft/wirtschaftsstandort/zukunftsbranchen- cluster/
Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2007). Innovation and Entrepreneurship (1st ed., p. 476). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Blank, S. (2013). Why the Lean Start-Up Changes Everything. Harvard
Business Review, (May), 1–9.
Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2012). The Startup Owner’s Manual: The Step-By-Step
Guide for Building a Great Company (p. 571). Pescadero: K & S Ranch.
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in Qualitative Research (1st ed., p. 223). London: Sage Pubn Inc.
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Experteninterviews - Theorien,
Methoden, Anwendungsfelder (3rd ed., p. 306). Wiesbaden: Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.
Bosma, N., & Levie, J. (2010). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2009 Executive
Report. (p. 72).
Brettel, M., Faaß, K., & Heinemann, F. (2007). Controlling für innovative junge Unternehmen. Controlling & Management, 3, 52–67.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network entrepreneur. In Entrepreneurship: The social
science view (pp. 281–307). New York: Oxford University Press Oxford.
Carayannopoulos, S., & Auster, E. R. (2010). External knowledge sourcing in biotechnology through acquisition versus alliance: A KBV approach.
Research Policy, 39(2), 254–267.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 35–41.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: when new technologies
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New
Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,
35(1), 128–152.
Dacin, M. T., Ventresca, M. J., & Beal, B. D. (1999). The Embeddedness of Organizations: Dialogue & Directions. Journal of Management, 25(3), 317–
356.
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures.
Organization Studies, 14(3), 375–394.
Dushnitsky, G., & Lenox, M. J. (2005). When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures? Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates. Research Policy, 34(5), 615–639.
Eggert, A., & Ulaga, W. (2002). Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in business markets? Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 17(2/3), 107–118.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. a. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they?
Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105–1121.
Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. (2003). Networks in Entrepreneurship: The Case of High-technology Firms. Small Business Economics, 21, 409–422.
Flatten, T. C., Engelen, A., Zahra, S. a., & Brettel, M. (2011). A measure of absorptive capacity: Scale development and validation. European
Management Journal, 29(2), 98–116.
Gartner, W. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 5, 15–28.
Gläser, J. (2009). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (3rd ed., p. 347). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Grimpe, C., & Kaiser, U. (2010). Balancing Internal and External Knowledge Acquisition: The Gains and Pains from R&D Outsourcing. Journal of
Management Studies, 47(8), 1483–1509.
Groen, A. (2005). Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship in networks: Towards a multi-level/multi dimensional approach. Journal of Enterprising Culture,
13(1), 69–88.
Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52(1), 653–683.
Henderson, R., & Clark, K. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The
Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.
Hippel, E. von. (1986). Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts.
Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.
Hite, J. M., & Hesterly, W. S. (2001). Research notes and commentaries the evolution of firm networks: From emergence to early growth of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 22, 275–286.
Huber, G. (1991). Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
Huff, A. S., Möslein, K. M., & Reichwald, R. (2013). Leading Open Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Huggins, R., Izushi, H., Clifton, N., Jenkins, S., Prokop, D., & Whitfield, C. (2010). Sourcing knowledge for innovation: the international dimension (p. 54).
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing Your Business Model. Harvard Business Review, (Dezember), 59–68.
Kang, K. H., & Kang, J. (2009). How do firms source external knowledge for innovation? Analysing effects of different knowledge sourcing methods.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(01), 1–17.
Kao, R. W. Y. (1993). Defining Entrepreneurship: Past, Present and? Creativity
and Innovation Management, 2(1), 69–70.
Kirzner, I. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–
85.
Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., & Ioannou, G. (2011). Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. Journal of
Business Research, 64(12), 1335–1343.
Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., & Pathak, S. (2006). The Reification of Absorptive Capacity: A Critical Review and Rejuvenation of the Construct. Academy of
Management Review, 31(4), 833–863.
Lapierre, J. (2000). Customer-perceived value in industrial contexts. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(2/3), 122–140.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms.
Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. (2003). Firm networks: external relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms.
Leung, A., Zhang, J., Wong, P. K., & Der Foo, M. (2006). The use of networks in human resource acquisition for entrepreneurial firms: Multiple “fit” considerations. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(5), 664–686.
Lewin, A., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. (2011). Microfoundations of Internal and External Absorptive Capacity Routines. Organization Science, 22(1), 81–
98.
Lin, C.-H., Sher, P. J., & Shih, H.-Y. (2005). Past progress and future directions in conceptualizing customer perceived value. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 16(4), 318–336.
Lorenz, A. (2014). Your fault or mine? The Impact of Organizational Learning from Product-related Failure on Innovation Strategy. In DRUID Society
Conference 2014 (p. 43). Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lowik, S., van Rossum, D., Kraaijenbrink, J., & Groen, A. (2012). Strong Ties as Sources of New Knowledge: How Small Firms Innovate through Bridging Capabilities*. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(2), 239–256.
Luo, Y., Sun, J., & Wang, S. L. (2011). Emerging Economy Copycats: Capability, Environment, and Strategy. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 25(2), 37–56.
Mayer, H. O. (2013). Interview und schriftliche Befragung (1st ed., p. 227). München: Oldenburg Wissenschaftsverlag GmbH.
McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurial Action and the Role of Uncertainty in the Theory of the Entrepreneur. The Academy of
Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.
Mintzberg, H., & Lampel, J. (1999). Reflecting on the Strategy Process. Sloan
Management Review.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A Firm as a Knowledge-creating Entity: A New Perspective on the Theory of the Firm. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 9(1), 1–20.
O’Reilly, C. a, & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization.
Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–83.
Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2015). Value
Proposition Design: How to Create Products and Services Customers Want
(Strategyzer) (p. 208). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Piller, F., & Ihl, C. (2009). Open Innovation with Customers: Foundations, Competences and International Trends. Trend Study within the BMBF
Presutti, M., Boari, C., & Majocchi, A. (2011). The Importance of Proximity for the Start-Ups’ Knowledge Acquisition and Exploitation. Journal of Small
Business Management, 49(3), 361–389.
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous
Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses (p. 336). New York:
Crown Publishing.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. The
Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
Schmidt, T. (2010). Absorptive Capacity - One Size Fits All? A Firm-level Analysis of Absorptive Capacity for Different Kinds of Knowledge.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 31(1), 1–18.
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy (pp. 82–85). New
York: Harper.
Shane, S. (2000). Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities. Organizational Science, 11(4), 448–469.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Shenkar, O., & Green, S. (2010). What Copycats Know About Innovation.
Harvard Business Review. Retrieved February 12, 2015, from
https://hbr.org/2010/06/what-copycats-know-about-innov
Shepherd, D. A., McMullen, J. S., & Jennings, P. D. (2007). The Formation of Opportunity Beliefs: Overcoming Ignorance and Reducing Doubt. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 75–95.
Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., & Knockaert, M. (2011). Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries.
Technovation, 31(1), 10–21.
Starr, J. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990). Resource cooptation via social
contracting: Resource acquisition strategies for new ventures. Strategic
Management Journal, 11, 79–92.
Stevenson, H., & Jarillo, J. (1990). A Paradigm of Entrepreneurship:
Entrepreneurial Management. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 17–
27.
Stienstra, M., Harms, R., Ham, R. A. van der, & Groen, A. (2012). Culture and entrepreneurial processes; Evidence of influence. In ICSB International
Tam, J. (2004). Customer Satisfaction, Service Quality and Perceived Value: An Integrative Model. Journal of Marketing Management, (852), 897–917.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Thomas, J. (2014). Startups in Berlin. berlinvalley.com. Retrieved July 1, 2014, from http://whats-up-in.berlinvalley.com/startups-in-berlin/
Thurik, R., & Wennekers, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship, small business and economic growth. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,
11(1), 140–149.
Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive Capacity: Valuing a
Reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 774–
786.
Veen, M. Van Der, & Wakkee, I. (2004). Understanding the Entrepreneurial Process. In David Watkins (Ed.), Annual Review of Progress in
Entrepreneurship Research (Vol. 2, pp. 114–152). Brussels: European
Foundation of Management Development (EFMD).
Veer, T., Lorenz, A., & Blind, K. (2013). How open is too open? The “dark side”of openness along the innovation value chain. In 35th DRUID
Celebration Conference 2013 (p. 31). Barcelona.
Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Absorbing the Concept of Absorptive Capacity: How to Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field.
Organization Science, 21(4), 931–951.
Wei, Y. (Susan), & Wang, Q. (2011). Making sense of a market information system for superior performance: The roles of organizational
responsiveness and innovation strategy. Industrial Marketing Management,
40(2), 267–277.
Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics,